Why do we have to pick either Rep or Dem?

M

motoxbudd

Contributor
Veteran XV
rather than have a rep and dem pres nominee with some random jackass running mate that will just sit around with his thumb up his ass waiting for the pres to get his head blowed off so he can step in, why not have the rep and dem pres nominees fight to see who will be the big boss, and the loser get to be vp? wouldnt that help out the whole check 'n balance issue for top spot on the pole? vp would keep pres ass in line, 'n would be the first to speak up of any bullshit hes trying to pull.

-moto
 
A government that is truly CHECKED and truly BALANCED would negate every action that itself attempted to do thereby making it a 100% innefectual government and entity.
 
A two party system gives the illusion of choice, where both parties intend to do the exact same thing while adopting opposite ideologies. Divide and conquer and all that.
 
motoxbudd said:
rather than have a rep and dem pres nominee with some random jackass running mate that will just sit around with his thumb up his ass waiting for the pres to get his head blowed off so he can step in, why not have the rep and dem pres nominees fight to see who will be the big boss, and the loser get to be vp? wouldnt that help out the whole check 'n balance issue for top spot on the pole? vp would keep pres ass in line, 'n would be the first to speak up of any bullshit hes trying to pull.

-moto
Click to expand...
This was close to the original system and it worked terribly.
 
3rd party is needed. Must build power in the house and senate first. Independent party seems to be the strongest at this time.

Can't have someone just show up with out numbers in the house and senate, doesn't work that way.
 
How would we go about getting rid of this bipartisan bullshit. Obviously it's a bad thing but unless we can do something about it who the fuck cares.
 
I don't vote Dem/Rep. People employ circular logic when they defend this.

1. Can't vote outside of Dem/Rep cause 3rd party candidate won't win.
2. 3rd party candidate won't win cause people won't vote for them.
 
this is how the system was originally set up. It was determined to suck. By who I am not sure. Probably people that didn't mind splitting the power 50/50 since it was better than 25/25/25/25.
 
Rayn said:
I don't vote Dem/Rep. People employ circular logic when they defend this.

1. Can't vote outside of Dem/Rep cause 3rd party candidate won't win.
2. 3rd party candidate won't win cause people won't vote for them.
Click to expand...

so, basically what you are saying, is we have a shitty system because we are stupid?
 
Rayn said:
I don't vote Dem/Rep. People employ circular logic when they defend this.

1. Can't vote outside of Dem/Rep cause 3rd party candidate won't win.
2. 3rd party candidate won't win cause people won't vote for them.
Click to expand...
You forgot the part where the system has been designed to be a two party system and that the Democrats and Republicans both actively work to keep third parties from becoming entrenched.

Voting for a third party is a wasted vote. The only way that a third party could ever become entrenched and therefore viable is if it managed to hold more than 1/3 of Congress, which has never happened and never will happen in even the most optimistic scenario.

The system is broken and "voting for a third party" isn't going to fix it.
 
telos said:
this is how the system was originally set up. It was determined to suck. By who I am not sure. Probably people that didn't mind splitting the power 50/50 since it was better than 25/25/25/25.
Click to expand...

im not saying have 2 presidents. still one pres, one vp, but the stupid canidates cant just pick their own lame ass running mates for vp. vp is given to whoever gets second highest number of electoral college votes in pres election.
 
telos said:
this is how the system was originally set up. It was determined to suck. By who I am not sure. Probably people that didn't mind splitting the power 50/50 since it was better than 25/25/25/25.
Click to expand...
No it isn't.
Several of the founders considered a two party government to be the worst eventuality possible. And they were right to feel that way.

People in power are in the business of consolidating power, not sharing it. This is why we wound up with a two party system. There were third parties well before the Greens and the Libertarians, but they generally only focused on a core set of issues rather than full government, which is why they never seized any sort of power and broke the Republicrat duopoly (examples: the Greenbacks, the Free Soilers, and the Populists.)

So essentially the current American government is a mockery of what it was meant to be.
 
... huh? what I'm telling you is it was originally set up to be the two people with the most votes out of who ever was running. Usually resulting in 3-4 viable parties. This split power between those 3-4 parties instead of the current 2. Your party being in power half the time is much better than being in charge 25% of the time. So parties made sacrifices until they were the only two parties and the cycle began.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top